Property Tax Assessment

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the subject property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board cannot abdicate its statutory duty to determine current value by reverting to a previous assessment, MPAC argued the Board erred in law.

The Board agreed, finding it erred by not making a finding of current value and by relying on case law without seeking submissions from the parties.

The request for review was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Board decision that set the property assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory obligation to determine the current value and cannot assign a value it knows is not current, the Board found it had erred in law.

The Board allowed the request for review, cancelled the previous decision, and ordered a rehearing.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Relying on the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, MPAC argued the Board has a statutory duty to determine the current value and cannot simply assign a value it knows is not current.

The Board agreed, finding it erred in law by not determining the current value and by relying on case law without giving parties an opportunity to make submissions.

The request for review was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a prior Assessment Review Board decision that set the subject property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory duty to determine the current value and cannot simply assign a known non-current value when MPAC fails to meet its burden of proof, MPAC argued the Board made a significant error of law.

The Board agreed, finding it erred in law by not making a finding of current value and by relying on case law without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

The request for review was allowed, the prior decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory obligation to determine the current value and cannot simply assign a non-current value, the Board found it erred in its previous decision.

The Board cancelled the decision and ordered a rehearing to determine the correct current value of the property.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the subject property's assessment at its last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

MPAC argued that the Board erred in law and denied natural justice, relying on the recent Divisional Court decision in Zarichansky.

The Board agreed, finding that it has a statutory obligation under the Assessment Act to determine the current value and cannot simply assign a value it knows is not current.

The Board also found it breached natural justice by relying on case law without allowing party submissions.

The request for review was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a prior Assessment Review Board decision that set the subject property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory obligation to determine the current value and cannot assign a value it knows is not current, MPAC argued the prior decision should be cancelled.

The Board agreed, finding it erred in its previous approach.

The request for review was allowed, the prior decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered to determine the correct current value of the property.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that set the assessed value of the subject property at its last uncontested value.

MPAC argued that the Board erred in law by failing to determine the current value of the property, relying on the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky.

The Board agreed, finding that it has a statutory obligation under the Assessment Act to determine the correct current value and cannot simply assign a value it knows is not current due to inadequate evidence.

The Board cancelled the original decision and ordered a rehearing.

The moving party requested a review of a previous Board decision that set the property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board has a statutory duty to determine the current value and cannot simply assign a value it knows is not current, the moving party argued the Board erred in law.

The Board agreed, finding it erred by not making a finding of current value and by relying on case law without giving parties an opportunity to make submissions.

The request for review was allowed, the decision cancelled, and a rehearing ordered.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested a review of a previous Assessment Review Board decision that set the property's assessment at the last uncontested value due to inadequate evidence.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Zarichansky, which held that the Board cannot abdicate its statutory duty to determine the current value of a property, MPAC argued the Board erred in law.

The Board agreed, finding it erred by not making a finding of current value and by relying on case law without allowing the parties to make submissions.

The request for review was granted, the previous decision was cancelled, and a rehearing was ordered.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The court set a timetable for the service and filing of materials, directed that the hearing proceed by Zoom videoconference, and provided instructions for the electronic filing of documents.

The appellants requested the reinstatement of several property assessment appeals that had been dismissed by the Assessment Review Board.

The appeals were originally dismissed because the Statements of Issues were not delivered.

However, the appellants had delivered the statements, and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) had attempted to withdraw its request to dismiss the appeals, but sent the email to an incorrect address.

The Board found that the appeals were dismissed in error due to this clerical mistake and ordered their reinstatement pursuant to Rule 122 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellant appealed the property assessment of a seasonal dwelling for the 2019 and 2020 taxation years, arguing the current value should be $250,000 rather than the assessed values of $651,000 and $578,000.

The Assessment Review Board reviewed sales data provided by both parties and determined that the best evidence of current value was a time-adjusted sale price of $594,000 based on comparable properties.

The Board found no quantitative evidence to support a negative adjustment for nuisances and concluded that an equity reduction was not required.

The assessment was reduced to $594,000 for 2019 and confirmed at $578,000 for 2020.

The moving party requested the reinstatement of its property tax assessment appeals for the 2017 and 2018 taxation years.

The appeals had been dismissed in error after the responding party mistakenly included them in a request to dismiss a different party's appeals for failing to comply with the schedule of events.

The moving party had substantially complied with the schedule by serving its statement of issues.

The responding party consented to the reinstatement.

The Assessment Review Board found the appeals were dismissed in error and ordered them reinstated pursuant to Rule 122 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The requestor sought to reinstate property assessment appeals for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

The Board found that the appeals had been closed in error after minutes of settlement were signed for the 2017 taxation year only.

Finding that procedural fairness required reinstatement due to several clerical errors by the Board, the request was granted and the appeals were reinstated.

A deemed appeal for the 2020 taxation year was also created.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) requested the reinstatement of several property assessment appeals that had been withdrawn by the appellant, Via Rail Canada.

MPAC argued the appeals were withdrawn in error because proper notice was not provided to all parties and that procedural fairness required reinstatement to allow MPAC to seek a higher assessment.

The Assessment Review Board denied the request, finding that MPAC had received actual notice of the withdrawal before it was processed, no notice of a higher assessment had been served prior to the withdrawal, and no hearing events had commenced.

The Board concluded the appeals were not withdrawn in error and procedural fairness did not require their reinstatement.

The requesting party, 1414841 Ontario Inc., sought an order requiring the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) to disclose income and expense statements and rent rolls for properties not under appeal.

Notice was served on the owners of the other properties, and no objections were received.

As the request was unopposed and on consent of all parties, the Assessment Review Board granted the order for disclosure subject to terms imposed by MPAC under section 53(5) of the Assessment Act.

The appellant requested a review of an Assessment Review Board decision that dismissed its property assessment appeals for the 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

The appellant, who was self-represented, argued that the Board violated procedural fairness by denying an adjournment request to retain counsel and by dismissing the appeals.

The Board denied the request for review, finding that the appellant had received adequate notice, had ample opportunity over two and a half years to seek procedural assistance or retain counsel, and failed to comply with the Schedule of Events.

The Board concluded there was no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness.

The City of Mississauga appealed the property tax classification of the subject property, seeking to change it from Commercial to Industrial for the 2016 through 2020 taxation years.

The parties agreed on the current value of the property but disputed the classification.

The Assessment Review Board found that manufacturing and processing activities occurred on the property, satisfying the definition of the Industrial property class under O. Reg. 282/98.

The assessed person argued that the appeal process was unduly delayed, causing financial prejudice, but the Board found no evidence of undue delay and noted that the assessed person had not requested an expedited hearing.

The appeal was allowed, and the property was reclassified as Industrial.

The appellant appealed the 2018 supplementary assessments and the deemed 2019 and 2020 assessments for a farm property improved with a newly built residence.

The Assessment Review Board determined the current value using the direct sales comparison approach and bracketing.

The Board confirmed the supplementary assessment for the land, reduced the supplementary assessment for the incomplete residence, and set the total current value for 2019 and 2020 at $834,000.

The Board found no equity adjustment was required.